Whoever Controls the Language Controls the Debate

If you can control the language, you can control ideas. By controlling ideas, you can control the way people think and act. Before Frank Schaeffer went over to the Dark Side, he had some good things to say about how liberals think and act. His analysis of language is still applicable: "Think of the use of labels to categorize political activity. Some labels are used to neutralize the actions of certain groups; others denote being 'one of us,' acceptable. The words 'right wing,' 'fundamentalist,' 'pro-life,' 'absolutist,' and 'deeply religious,' are put-downs more than categories. Conversely, think of the unspoken pat on the back and blessing that the following words convey: 'moderate,' 'pluralistic,' 'liberal,' 'civil libertarian,' 'pragmatic,' and 'enlightened."1

Comments

This is quite true and we contribute to liberals controlling the language by using terms such as "progressive" to denote them. We also allow them to bully us by failing to point out that lieberals are lying when they use terms like "hate speech" and "racist". We also give them the victory when we stand silent when they misuse Scripture such as when maobama tried to justify sodomite marriage by quoting the Golden Rule. We also give them the victory when we patronize those companies that fund the lieberal lie factories such as CNN and MSNBC. We have got to get serious in the fight against the lieberals and we must realize that lieberalism is an evil, insidious, fatal disease that must be cut out of our country before it destroys us all.

Don

Another one: Gay for the liberals, and sin for conservatives, also - "abusers of themselves" the Bible term. Note they abuse themselves. Think of that. They want us to approve of their abusing themselves.

Screeminmeeme

This is not hard. Simply REFUSE to submit to the use of their vocabulary and use your own. Do not be bullied into political correctness no matter what they say. In fact, CORRECT THEM every chance you get....and be prepared for them to either recoil or attack in response.

This attempt by the left to control speech reminds me of Orwell's dystopian novel, '1984' based on his experiences of living in totalitarian countries. In the book, the nation of Oceania's ruler, Big Brother, uses the language of ''Newspeak'' to manipulate the general public in order to accomplish a political goal. Any alternative thinking is called ''Thoughtcrime''....or in today's world - political INcorrectness.

Then there is “Doublethink” which is the 'Party’s' massive campaign of large-scale psychological manipulation. Simply put, doublethink is the ability to hold two contradictory ideas in one’s mind at the same time. As the Party’s mind-control techniques break down an individual’s capacity for independent thought, it becomes possible for that individual to believe anything that the Party tells them, even while possessing information that runs counter to what they are being told. Does this sound familiar?

War is peace..... Freedom is slavery.....Ignorance is strength.....Black is white....Up is down.

And the Party uses the slogan:
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.

We see this today in the left's redaction of our Nation's history and its Christian foundation. It's imperative that we pass on our knowledge, our skills, our family histories, our recollections and memories to our children and grandchildren so they will know the truth.

Other similarities with the novel are pretty scary.

In the world of Big Brother, food was rationed and there was forced physical exercise every morning. This would surely be the policy if Michelle Obama had her way....along with HER demands that you eat only certain foods.

Totalitarian regimes are very effective at enhancing their own power and miserably incompetent at providing for their citizens...hence in every communist nation there is urban decay, poverty, and the deterioration of infrastructure. Big Brother lives oppulently while keeping citizens in abject poverty and dependent. Sound familiar? Hello food stamps.....good-bye steak. Hello Schwinn....good-bye Hummer.

Telescreens and microphones were hidden all over the nation in order to monitor the behavior of Party members. Orwell shows that technology, which can work for the good of mankind , can also facilitate the most diabolical evil. Can anyone say DRONES?

Ownership of guns or any type of weapon was not permitted. This is Obama/Holder's dream.

Orwell wrote '1984' to create the worst human society imaginable, in an effort to convince readers to AVOID ANY PATH that might lead to socialism, totalitarianism and it's horrors. He wanted people to understand the importance of how language molds thoughts and opinions and how resistence to PC speech is a must. Articulation of TRUTH is an obligation.

Orwell was also a strong proponent of individual possession of firearms, not only in times of war, but also in times of peace. He believed that a large, well-armed popular militia would act as a sort of insurance policy against tyranny. As did our Founding Fathers.

The lesson here: Leftists have never really changed their tactics and blueprint for taking over a nation. The following is characteristic of every totalitarian regime:
1. Control the food.
2. Control the guns.
3. Control the vocabulary.
4. Control information and history.

If Obama and his gang of thugs can accomplish this list, they win.

I hate to rain on their parade, but I dont think we should let them.
Do you?

PMDavis

As usual, excellent post! It is obvious Obama is working on accomplishing your list.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1200351841 Jason Rahall

he republicans have been better at messaging than the democrats since the Reagan years. Specifically, the republicans have been successful at aiming the message to resonate with low-information voters. As a result, the low-info voters hear a few key words (sound bites) repeatedly (family values, lower taxes) and with blind-faith - voila! - they vote against their own self-interest. Egregiously misleading, yes, but rather brilliant.

DixieAngel_76

Back to your tent, Jason.

Doug Hensley

Chinese mercury-laden lightbulbs light my home. They draw less current than incandescents, they last longer, and as to breaking and sliming my home with mercury, (a) hasn't happened yet, and (b) easily cleaned up, frankly, if it were to happen. Living in the south, most of the year the waste heat from incandescent bulbs is unwelcome; in the summer it requires use of further electricity for the AC.

What, exactly, is "not conservative" about frugality and common sense?

Screeminmeeme

Doug Hensley.........
It's not about being frugal, you boob. It's about the GOVERNMENT REMOVING THE CHOICE of being able to buy an incandescent bulb if we want. Its about GOVERNMENT CONTROL.

In addition, the bulbs ARE mercury-laden, and according to the government's own hazardous materials rules, the clean up of a broken bulb is very complicated and time consuming. If one breaks it doesn't ''slime '' your home but the powdered mercury is easily wafted from room to room in the air current.

Have the common sense to RESIST government control.

Rooster

I've gone through (used up) about 24 CFLs in the last 6 years. In the same time, I have 3 incandescents that have been operating for over 8 years, the warranted life of some of those CFLs. Actually, the last 12 were a replacement for the first 12 that didn't outlast their warranty. So, that's 36 CFLs. The last CFL got so hot that it shattered the glass bulb around it and blackened the ceramic base—the last of 3 that had that problem. Had I not caught it in time, it would have caught fire. I have not purchased another since. Instead, I went to Walmart and bought a 10-year supply of American-made incandescents.

As for "egregiously misleading," CFLs are only the governments way of exerting control over the population. They tell us what to buy; they tell the manufacturer what to make; and they concoct schemes to force us all to comply. CFLs do not necessarily outlast incandescents, and the cost is five or six times the price of an incandescent. The mercury inside is dangerous, they are a fire-hazard, and they are government mandated.

Obama and the climate change hucksters have put many of these aforementioned made-in-America products—their manufacturers—out of business, and hundreds of jobs have
been lost. CFLs are simply one of the many tools of the socialist take-over. "Frugality and common sense" is double-speak used here as a veiled lie to vindicate Big Brother and ignore the loss off freedom and liberty and American jobs. (I'm still looking for a job after 10 months of searching.)

Steven

In my experience, CFL bulbs last HALF as long as incandescent bulbs, and but out about 2/3 of the light as what they CLAIM they are equivalent to. In order for the energy saving they claim to pay for the extra cost, they would have to last TWICE as long as they claim.

I WILL grant you one point. The mercury content wouldn't harm most people it they deliberately ate it.

DixieAngel_76

You are supposed to, by law, call in a haz-mat team to clean it up if one of them breaks, did you know that?

joepotato

They missed one- Liberal > factual inaccuracy-----Conservative> LIE > The media is way too easy on the Liar/Usurper in Chief....

Michael F Douglas

"The way you talk is the way you think - the way you think is the way you talk - if THEY can control the way you talk then THEY can control the way you think". "Political correctness" is just another term for "Creeping Communism".I have been saying this for the past 25 years.

Ted R. Weiland

It's worse. Because the center between the liberals and conservatives is always incrementally shifting further to the left, what is conservative on most issues today is really just a more conservative form of liberalism.

The sad fact of the matter is, Democrats and Republicans are not polar opposites; there is actually little difference between them. Anything left of Yahweh's morality (as codified in commandments, statutes, and judgments) is left, liberal, and ultimately ungodly. When today's politicians, churches, preachers, and most people claiming to be Christians are judged by this standard (the only standard by which all things must be judged), they are found to be merely conservative or liberal leftists. It is, consequently, imperative that true conservative (pronomian) Christians do everything in their power to uphold this standard before the world and modern churchianity.

I believe it was lawyers who first sought to disguise the truth with flowery words. When I was young almost all politicians had law degrees or so it seemed. I believe it was the Baird who said it best 'a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet', what I suppose he thought went without saying is that crap by any other name still smells offensive. By speaking in 'politically correct terms' the truth is not changed only disguised making it less likely to get dealt with, their goal.

bananafanafo.......good list and spot on as to how the left actually sees things. PC is killing us.

samtman

Evidence made up facts

Silas Longshot

Well put.
And the kool-aide slurping sheeple lap it up, raptly attending every word spewed by the likes of Rachel Madcow and other such propagandists. I try to keep abreast of what these morons are saying so as to counter the leftist drivel, but sadly, I must change the channel after 2 or 3 minutes or risk destroying my flat screen from impact of any loose object that may get hurled at the screen.

surviving urban crisis . com

Sutekh

One of the first things one has to do is reject the prissy terms that the perverters of language have used to try to control the debate.
"No human being is illegal," they say. O.k. if only acts are illegal, humans who commit illegal acts are called criminals. How about calling them "criminal aliens?"
A homosexual is a homosexual. He is not "gay." In ancient times, use of the word "gay" to describe a male meant that he dressed up like a girl going to a party or festival -- "going gay, like a maiden." This phrase is found in a couple of English translations of the Bible, but homosexuals don't know this, they only skim the parts of the Bible attacked by homosexual activists, and actually read only the activist's eisegesis of the text.
Affirmative action is just racism by another name. Don't buy into the use of the term;.
the author of this post did a great job.

Sutekh

I forgot to mention the mockeries of Christian marriage held by churches who unite same-sex couples in sexual cohabitation (in states where such unions are illegal.)
They say "These are not weddings. These are illegal by law. These are 'covenant ceremonies.'" So call them what they are: same-sex shacking up ceremonies. If the couple cannot marry, but they insist on living together in sexual cohabitation, there isn't any other phrase to describe it accurately.

allahwins

Saw a great bumper sticker today in NJ: Gun control-Using Two Hands.

DixieAngel_76

What a hoot! Who says the truth can't make you laugh?!

bananafanafo

Illegal immigration is about NATIONAL SECURITY and nothing else. Don't let them put Mexican into the conversation. It is all races coming across our border that hate infidels, wanted to kill u, (SPLIT THEIR FAMILY UP) reply: they set up drug lines with the safe houses(everyday illegal regular people) which hurt the American family when the drugs are dealed to them. We can not tell WHY these people are in our country but we do know the law is applied equally in our country. If we can not apply the law equally then we have a corrupt government.
Democratic sob stories: Using the government for their own Charities, they should be out raising money for these (what ever the sob story is). The government should have no part in (whatever the sob story is) they can't even defend our borders and they want more money for this? Democratics need to start their own charity and have people (probably Hollywood) interested in this issue raise money.

http://profile.yahoo.com/EC22I6723LSC26URXKZGBRXE64 juan colina

Great post!! Here is another one . . . there is NOTHING "gay" about being homosexual, yet the Left has adopted the term and wants you to use it whenever possible. And why is gay not used to describe female homosexuals? Explain that idiosyncrasy and you may start to understand how the Left thinks.